Autoethnography: A methodology to integrate professional

and academic learning in journalism education

Dr Margaret Hughes
Senior Lecturer – Journalism
University of the West of Scotland
Email: Margaret.hughes@uws.ac.uk

Abstract
This paper explores how a professional doctorate, the Doctor of Professional
Studies in Public Works at Middlesex University, was successfully completed
using autoethnography as its methodology. It aims to illustrate to journalism
educators the suitability of using this approach to undertake their own
research, perhaps at doctoral level, as well as provide to students on
journalism programmes with a methodology, that while sometimes contested
in the academy, is a credible and rigorous approach that can be meaningfully
adopted in a practice-based field such as journalism education.

Introduction
The Doctor of Professional Studies in Public Works (DProf) requires that
candidates compile a context statement (hereafter referred to as the research
project) which is a critical examination of works which they have created in
their professional lives and which exist in the public domain. In my case, my
public works consisted of four undergraduate journalism degrees progammes
in which I led the conceptualisation, design and implementation over the last
15 years.

This research project identified the opportunities and challenges inherent in

creating, validating and running the journalism programmes where I was
programme leader. The research project explored underpinning principles in
the design and operation of journalism education, that is, how universities
need to create degrees that teach practice-based skills but which, as
Gregorian (cited in Connell) suggests, ‘are [places] where students would
acquire not only skills but the intellectual depth and curiosity and the
commitment to honesty and high ethical standards they will need to uphold
the core values of this vital profession’ (2008, p.2).

The capabilities referred to by Gregorian (ibid) feature strongly among the key
themes explored in this research project: degree design that balances theory
with practice; the collaboration and comprise inherent in the process of
designing and implementing journalism degree programmes; responsibility in
ensuring sustainable and enhanced learning experiences. Underpinning all of
these is my leadership role in each of them because in essence the research
project was a critical reflection of my own professional development with
insights into my transition into the academy and how my teaching and
research skills evolved.

Adopting a reflective approach in research

Reflective practice, which lies at the heart of autoethnography, is a much-

used term in professional life – most professions are conscious of the need for
practitioners to reflect on their practice with the goal that performance,
however it is defined, is improved. I subscribe to the concept proffered by the
educational theorist Friere that to understand how we move forward we need
to ‘re-cognise’ (2014, p. 38) the past, taking it apart to enable us to
understand, to cognise and know better ‘why I do what I do’. Exploring and
positioning myself and my experience in the context of my public works was
hugely challenging but was aided by my growing confidence in
autoethnography as an appropriate and valid methodology.

I was guided toward autoethnography by my research supervisor, in the main

because the self-reflective critique required to complete the professional
doctoral programme has advocated this as an acceptable, even desirable,
and valid approach around which my work could be framed.
A key challenge in writing up the research was, for me, the very personal
narrative that it necessitated I adopt, and which it encourages and allows. It
took a significant amount of time, and trial and error in seeking an appropriate
methodology, before I settled on autoethnography. Finding a methodological
approach that enabled me to meaningfully articulate my work was
enlightening. It was new to me but it has opened up to research opportunities
beyond what I believed to be credible and acceptable within the academy.
Taking an autoethnographical approach facilitated the reflective work I was
required to undertake.

Underpinning the decision to undertake the process of the professional

doctorate was the requirement I had of it that it would inform my practice. As
such it was a journey of discovery into how my past practice can re-define my
future and the transformative nature of the reflection was both challenging and
enlightening. In essence, its reflexive nature needed to have a proactive
outcome. It needed to impact on future practice in degree development in
journalism education, particularly within my own university.

As Johns states:
‘Reflective practice is about becoming aware of our own
assumptions, how these assumptions govern our practice, how
these assumptions must shift to embrace change, understanding
resistance to assumption shift, and finally to change assumptions
to support a better state of affairs.’ (2013, p. xv)

Reflection enabled me to see that I had begun the journey of writing this
series of degree programmes based on beliefs and practices grounded in my
own experience of studying journalism at university, as well as seeking advice
and suggestions from others on how the programmes should be designed.
Reflecting on it now, I realise how I often changed my perspective. Like many
who are making such decisions, sometimes I went with my instinct, other
times I went with what the HE sector appeared to be indicating was right and
sometimes it felt that we were in a constant cycle of responding to shifting
demands in the industry. In the midst of all of this activity there was rarely a
chance to draw breath and to fully consider, and comprehend, the basis upon
which decisions were being made other than a need, an expectation, to keep
moving forward.

Schon (1996) puts it quite succinctly when he defines reflection as ‘an act of
professional artistry’ and discusses how ‘reflection-in-action (ibid, p.12)’ can
have a profound impact on behaviours and practice. In the initial phase of
compiling the research project, my public works were, to all intents and
purposes, historical documents that had undergone amendment. As I
progressed through the doctoral project, I led the re-design of the
programmes, as such the 2016 degree was framed, in part, as a result of the
deep reflection I was undertaking as part of writing the context statement and
is reflective of the changes I have undergone as part of that process.
Autoethnography requires honesty for it to be valid and I needed to reflect that
I had rarely had the chance to reflect as deeply on my work as the DProf
experience allowed me to do. It was a revelation.

This recognition of my learning within the context as a programme leader in

journalism education has prompted me, as Smith (2011) asserts, to
increasingly use critical reflection as a useful way to become more insightful in
terms of my own practice and professionalism as well as gain more
knowledge about the way in which the broader field of journalism education
and its study, aligns itself to meet demands around learning, teaching and
research.

Successfully completing the DProf required a decision on how best to present

the reflective critique of the public works using a methodology that would be
viewed as valid and credible within the setting of the academy with its national
regulatory criteria for assessing and awarding doctorates which are
fundamentally research degrees. As such, this paper looks at some of the
challenges of how to ‘tell’ a story of a journey and derive meaning from that
for my, and hopefully others’, future practice, and to research it as one would
any area of knowledge. A doctorate by public works is like a reversal into the
research and development articulation of a doctoral award. The works have
been achieved and are already in the world. What sits behind their production
is doctoral level thinking combined with senior professional practice expertise.
It is an examination and articulation of the context and the how and why which
provide the missing piece required for the award.

Therefore, I needed a research methodology that could help me to make

sense of how the reflection on my public works had evolved to meet the
expected demands and conventions as a piece of doctoral work. It required
me to consider research approaches within the academy and, on reflection
that process has meant I have persistently constructed and reconstructed my
own understanding and knowledge of my public works, my work, and my own
approach to learning. Developing this research project also contributed to my
reaching a point of understanding about the basis on which my knowledge is
both created and claimed.

Murdock (2007) points to the work of Alfred Schutz in the early 1930s who
argued that people interact with others and continually build and rebuild their
own realities as they respond to the changing circumstances of their lives and
the society around them. Murdock (ibid) identifies a constructionist approach
to which I can relate in the context of my public works in both how I created
them and in how I presented them as a key part of the doctoral project.

What was key from the outset was the need to understand the conceptual
framework around which the research was created. From an ontological
perspective my research project exemplifies Cresswell’s definition of a
constructivist approach where ‘individuals seek understanding of the world in
which they live and work (and) develop subjective meanings of their
experiences’ (2003, p.8). The use of autoethnography as the key
methodology, illustrated how I responded to external forces and my own
understanding of them to bring meaning to the design, content and operation
of the degree programmes that constituted my public works. The nature of the
autoethnographical methodology I adopted has enabled me to illustrate the
constructivist nature of my approach in a very meaningful way whereby the
‘self’ is used to show how the public works, and I, as a researcher, responded
to and negotiated with a broader social world. In this context, my public works
included my background, my personal and professional experiences and the
role and influence of the wider communities that represent the range of
stakeholders in journalism degree programme design, implementation and
operation.

On examining my epistemological perspective I am naturally drawn to the

interpretivist position that portrays the world as ‘constructed and interpreted
by people – rather than something which exists objectively’ (Denscombe,
2010, p.121). The key concept here that I relate to is that of objectivity, as a
human being, and a researcher, I believe myself to be part of a social world,
or community, I am not separate from it. My understanding of that world is
therefore defined by how I construct my own meaning of it, based on my
interaction with it and within it, as opposed to being outside of it. Given that
my public works were created by my own experiences and inquiries rather
than by what quantitative data may have told me was useful, which, to my
mind would have been a more positivist and scientific approach, my
epistemological stance was an interpretivist one that sat well with an
autoethnographic methodology.

Methodology

This paper is a review of literature in the field of autoethnography and how it is

adopted within the academy by academics across a diverse range of subject
disciplines. By the very nature of the doctoral research project being
discussed, this paper is written in that first person, reflective narrative.

As such, I need to acknowledge that it is in itself an autoethnographic piece of

work because I am self-reflecting on my experience and considering what I
have learned from it to enable me to bring meaning to it so I can share it with
others. Denzin (1989) defines research of this nature as autoethnographic
research, so this paper can also be defined as a piece of authoethnography.
Adopting an autoethnographical approach

In compiling and presenting my public works, I knew the approach needed to

be reflexive and it needed to stem from a qualitative perspective. I gauge the
success of my public works by the impacts they have had on the students I
have taught (impact statements from graduates of the programme did form
part of the broader work of the research project). Being so personally and
closely involved in how my works impact and needing to present a piece of
research that reflected this made autoethnography a suitable choice and a
methodological approach around which I could frame my work.

Ellis (cited in Jones, Adams and Ellis, 2015) describes autoethnography as

being a powerful influence in the work and lives of those who adopt it, she
states:

‘it is not simply a way of knowing about the world; it has become
a way of being in the world, one that requires living consciously,
emotionally and reflexively. It asks that we not only examine our
lives but also consider how and why we think, act and feel as we
do’ (ibid p.10).

This resonated with me because I frequently needed to acknowledge, as the

DProf project continued, that my work was an extension of my own personal
ambitions and aspirations and, in researching my own outputs, it helped me
learn more about my professional self and improve upon it. As Ellis (ibid)
states ‘It (autoethnography) asks that we re-think and revise our lives, making
conscious decisions about who and how we want to be.’ (ibid, p.10)

Manning and Adams (2015) also support the premise that autoethnography
enables us to understand that what we experience cannot be separated from
a whole range of social contexts and that ‘people – especially the researcher
– make sense of mundane or notable life events and that lessons...learned
across the lifespan (Bochner & Ellis)…with the purpose of offering wisdom
and guidance to others’ (ibid, p.189).
Defining autoethnography is complex – Ellis and Berger (2002) are quite clear
that it is a social science research method which consists of ‘stories written in
an autobiographic genre about the relationship of self, other and culture’ (ibid,
p.849) and, as such, legitimises the role of the ‘self ‘ within the wider canon of
academic research. But even Ellis & Bochner, two of its leading proponents,
identify that ‘researchers disagree on the precise definitions of the types of
autoethnography’ (2000, p.740).

What they do assert is that autoethnography is comprised:

‘on the research process (graphy), on culture (ethnos) and on

self (auto)’ … and that all autoethnographies exist somewhere
along the ‘continuum of these three axes’ (ibid, p.740).

While definitions vary, autoethnography is essentially a merging of the

techniques, theories and practices found in ethnography, with those of
autobiography and memoir. As Manning and Adams (2015) state,
autoethnography ‘foregrounds the researcher’s personal experience (auto) as
it is embedded within, and informed by, cultural identities and contexts (ethno)
and as it is expressed through writing…or other creative means (graphy).’
(ibid, p.188).

A review of the literature on autoethnography supported the decision to adopt

it, but I also recognised that this choice would not be without some issues.
Jones (cited in Jones, Adams and Ellis, 2015), discusses the challenges
around autoethnography as a methodology, she says:

‘while choosing autoethnography wasn’t a professional

risk…telling personal stories in/as research always carries
personal, relational and ethical risks … I knew these risks were
necessary not only for our research but also for living full lives
 and changing our world in important and essential ways’ (ibid,
p.19).

It was clear that I needed this critical engagement with my public works to
inform my own future practice and, hopefully, that of others. Exploring my own
experience was, therefore, a necessity because it provided a stronger
foundation for transparent, reliable and relevant actions.

Jones, Adams and Ellis (2015) point out there is a marked difference between
autoethnographic writing and autobiographic writing. As a former journalist my
instinct, indeed what I was taught never to do as a journalist, was to write in
any way that could be considered autobiographical.

Professionally I was immersed in a culture where the word ‘I’ was not
welcomed in copy, where my experience was not relevant to the story and
where the journalist should never be the story. More than that, it is about the
need to retain objectivity because it is perceived as core to what journalism
should be. However, adopting a constructionist approach as an academic
researcher, I acknowledge that objectivity is difficult to attain because we are
the product of all of the experiences life throws at us and this shapes the
language we use, and the questions we ask. I needed to make the transition
to having subjectivity at the heart of my research and feel comfortable with it
against long held professional instincts. But autoethnography is nothing if not
disruptive and from this disruption I learned much.

Like many journalism educators, I teach students the importance of objectivity

in their journalism and acknowledge and am aware of the challenges of this.
Similarly in the context of the autoethnographic approach, I acknowledge the
challenge it presented but it was the most useful approach to enable me to
acknowledge and critically analyse the impact my own subjectivity and value
judgements have played in the creation of the range of programmes that
comprise my public works. As Le Roux (2017) states the use of the ‘self’ in
the narrative of a piece of academic research is challenging despite the fact
that ‘the approach is defensible, the findings…credible and the narrative
contributed to the discourse…in academe’ (ibid, p.201).

The autoethnographic approach afforded me the opportunity to reflect on

much, for example, how I have challenged the accepted norm that we needed
to adopt an industry-centred model of education or that industry professionals
could almost ‘dictate’ what we did. From the outset of designing the very first
degree, I knew it needed industry ‘buy-in’ but I was also determined it would
have ‘university degree standard’ at its core. It necessitated that I consider the
contribution of industry partners but, in the end, I designed a degree which put
academic standards at its centre. This is not to say that they are mutually
exclusive, but the two worlds have different demands and expectations and as
journalism educators meeting them is a constant balancing act. Reflecting on
my response to the need to meet many competing demands, I realised with
hindsight that I felt vulnerable but that this vulnerability did lead to outcomes
which I felt satisfied my own professional instincts, as well as the demands of
a range of stakeholders in the programme.

As I accepted the practice and process of autoethnography I also needed to

be assured of the rigour and validity of it. Pathak (2010) discussed how she
devised her own guidelines to ensure rigour in her autoethnographic work and
this proved helpful and reassuring. Similarly Forber-Pratt devised a checklist
to ensure her autoethnographic work met criteria around the credibility and
validity expected in academic research. Adopting a similar approach was both
useful and supportive. She stated: ‘the beauty of autoethnography is creating
your approach yourself and finding your own voice’ (Forber-Pratt, 2015,
p.832).

As Le Roux (2017) P202 states ‘the researcher should be regarded as

primarily responsible for ensuring that academic rigour of…her research’ – as
such responsibility fell to me to ensure that the work achieved this and that
the outcome, as with that of any piece of research, became of value to a wider
community of practice.
While autoethnography puts the researcher at the heart of the research
project, as Ngunjiri, Hernandez & Chang state, this does not mean it is ‘self in
a vacuum’ (2010, p.3). In the context of researching my practice it is clear that
I needed to consider and recognise the impact of a multiplicity of others in
how I acted and reacted and how this influenced the decisions I made when
designing and implementing the programmes. As Hernandez, Sancho, Crues
& Montane state:

‘it meant paying attention to moments of personal and

professional transits such as learning processes, crises,
migrations, beginnings and ruptures, new contexts and relations
and so forth’ (ibid, p.5)

They write about how our re-telling of our experiences are unique to us but
they inevitably draw others in and have the potential to show to them a
perspective on events they may/will not share.

Denzin (1989) also states that autoethnography is often about life changing
events or epiphanies and while I would not categorise my own interrogation of
my practice in these terms, I realised that I was exploring, examining and
analysing periods of profound professional challenge that demanded I
acknowledge my limitations as well as my success in stretching these and in
doing so alter my own perception of my self, from both a professional and
personal perspective. Much of the autoethnography I read was of a deeply
personal and private nature and while I felt I was publicly declaring moments
of great professional doubt, from that place of vulnerability I gained useful
insight into how my professional practice did evolve and improve as time
progressed. If autoethnography is about helping ourselves and other learn, as
much of the literature supporting it professes, then the lessons I realised I was
learning included how to grow in professional confidence through years of
practice and effort, and getting things both right and wrong.

In my desire to assure myself that autoethnography met the criteria of validity

and reliability in terms of research conventions, I searched for the ‘right’ way
to do it. There was no clear cut answer, instead I discovered a myriad of
approaches that ranged from vivid accounts of personal crises to systematic
representations of data. What became clear was that, as Manning and Adams
(2015) state: ‘there is no single way to do autoethnography’, there are instead
many approaches that can be adopted.

However, for all my anxiety around the robustness of autoethnography,

Anderson & Glass-Coffin (2015, cited in Jones, Adams and Ellis p.64) state
that a positive aspect of autoethnography is ‘its methodological openness’
while at the same time acknowledging that inherent in the method is the
challenge around understanding the need to still gather data in a rigorous
way.

Anderson & Glass-Coffin (ibid) discuss the need for those undertaking
autoethnography to reflect on how they engage with their field of research and
how this engagement enables them to more fully understand and perhaps
know themselves. Key here is the concept that reflecting on my experiences
has changed my public works, my professional practice and my perception of
myself. They cite Richardson who says ‘writing is also a way of ‘knowing’ – a
method of discovery and analysis. By writing in different ways, we discover
new aspects of our topic and our relationship to it’ (1994, p.516). This has
been my experience and my perspective on my discipline has been deepened
and revised as result of this process, evidenced by my willingness to
challenge perceptions of how journalism education should be taught within my
own university.

What is clear is that the body of autoethnographic work is extensive and

spans the scientific to the creative. What is encouraging in this significant
body of work, as detailed by Ngunjiri, Hernandez & Change (2010), is that life
in the academy is well documented in autoethnographic research and I found
this supportive in terms of identifying the autoethnographic nature/aspect of
the doctoral project.
Ngunjiri, Hernandez & Change (ibid) also highlight the elements of self-
disclosure and exposure that autoethnographic research can involve. In the
context of my own work I needed to acknowledge that the greatest challenge
for me was how I, and my work, are perceived in a professional rather than
personal context. I am conscious of the need to have readers understand that
this had the potential to be limiting in my career as much as it could be
liberating. The very nature of the autoethnographic approach demands
honesty, with a recognition of both professional and personal vulnerability
being a factor in how the work is written and presented.

Pathak (2010) discusses how undertaking autoethnographic research gave

her the opportunity to tell stories that she herself wanted to read. She
acknowledges the challenges, as she puts it, that telling her own story was a
challenge because she wanted it to be ‘research and not merely me-search’
(2010, p.3). This resonates strongly with me, as I suspect it would with many
within the academy who are undertaking research.

Exploring, sharing and analysing my professional experience in this way was

by turn terrifying, exciting and liberating. My professional life is bound by
‘rules’ of systematic methodological approaches to both academic and
journalistic research – autoethnography provides an opportunity to be more
than autobiographic and less than the academic discourse referred to by
Ngunjiri, Hernandez & Chang (2010).

While autoethnography presents an exciting opportunity it also presents a

challenging one. As Forber-Pratt states: ‘how does one actually do this?’
(2015, p.821). I identified strongly with her concerns over the practicalities of
presenting research in this way.

Ellis (2009) talks about autoethnography as an approach that does result in

the researcher becoming vulnerable in the face of others, and perhaps
oneself. This has been my experience, as I realise/reflect that others will read
my work and perhaps criticise both my practice and the academic integrity of
the autoethnographic approach I adopted. Manning and Adams (2015) agree
there is risk inherent in the honesty that autoethnography requires.

Ngunjiri, Hernandez & Chang (2010) also identify that autoethnographies will
often present challenges in terms of ethical dilemmas faced by participants,
particularly when sensitive, personal issues are explored and could impact on
others. Manning and Adams (2015) refer to this as relational ethics and the
consideration that requires to be given to anyone likely to be impacted by
what is explored in the research. In terms of my work this relates to any
comment I made about the contributions made by others involved the design
of the degrees that form my public works, so care did need to be taken around
how much was disclosed about other participants in my experiential journey
with very minimal comment made about them. I agree with Forber-Pratt
(2015) that the prospect is scary but this was necessary to enable benefit to
be derived from my doctoral experience.

Autoethnography required that I confront how ‘I’ met and merged with the
requirement to produce academically sound work (Johnston & Strong, 2008).
Just as the discipline of journalism education is still continuing to establish
itself within an HE context, so too it seems is autoethnography. The literature
suggests it needs to solidify its place within the academy as a more widely
adopted methodological tool, particularly in humanities and social sciences,
and the range of ways in which we understand and contextualise our
experiences and understanding of ourselves in a range of social, political,
cultural, economic and educational contexts.

Pathak (2010) makes the point that autoethnography is disruptive in the

context of traditional academic research and it is not without its pitfalls. For
example, care needs to be taken to avoid falling into autobiographic memoir.
Pathak also stated: ‘autoethnography gives voice to my life in a way that
never seems to be articulated in academic writings in which I searched for
myself’ (ibid, p.2). What I related to most strongly was her recognition that she
has been schooled to accept her lack of voice was ‘the most legitimate form of
knowledge’ (ibid, p.2) – and as already discussed, my professional training
had similarly taught me to silence my own voice in my work. For me,
autoethnography legitimises my experience and the role of the ‘self’, of
myself, in my work and that exploring it and finding meaning in it and direction
from it can be credibly defended as academic research, which has been
critically examined and can rightfully take its place in the canon of work in the
field.

More than this, Pathak (ibid) passionately argues for the validity of the
knowledge gained as a result of an experience is as relevant as intellectual
knowledge and is not separate from it. As she stated: ‘to know is not merely
an abstract, omnipotent, intellectualised process. To know is to engage an
experience fully…knowledge then is a vaster, more multi-dimensional realm
than we often recognise’ (ibid, pp.4-5).

Her position is that intellectual and experiential knowledge are equally valid,
which was important to me professionally. So, the more I understood that
autoethnography calls for an ‘active intellectual voice’ (Pathak, ibid, p.8) to
assert this credibility, the safer I felt about using it as a means of re-telling
experiences to create a space between the author and the story and remain
intellectually critical. Manning and Adams (2015) also asserted that ‘personal
experience becomes valid, viable and vital kind of data from which to make
meaning and use in research’ (ibid, p.190).

I am attracted by autoethnography because it lays the foundations which

enable personal, lived experiences to become part of the world of scholarly
research and investigation. In this respect it has come to be viewed as a
research method and methodology that has relevance within the academy
despite Delamont’s assertion that it is ‘essentially lazy’, lacking in ‘analystic
outcomes’ and ‘impossible’ to undertake ‘ethically’ (2007, p.2).

Critics of the autoethnographical approach, such as Delamont assert that

autoethnography ‘abrogates our duty to go out and collect data’ (2007, p.3). I
would contest her definition of data as overly narrow and, in my view, it is a
mistaken understanding of data. In the context of an autoethnography, the
‘data’ is the recollection and narrative around the experience. Part of the
reflexive processes undertaken as part of my doctoral journey, and as part of
everyday life, does illustrate that the data is analysed, assessment was made
of the impact
of the degrees I had written in a rigorous fashion and changes are made as
identified and required as part of the on-going re-profiling, moderation and re-
design of the programmes. In that sense the approach taken as part of my
professional responsibility is akin to a more ‘scientific’ approach to research.

Critics of autoethnography point to the potential of a perceived lack of critical

analysis (Delamont 2007) in such work. As a former journalist I can
understand why it is contested and I can see where, as Pearce states ‘the
alleged laziness of autoethnography is levelled against the often overly
evocative nature of autoethnography’ (2010, p.4). However, the challenge lies
in achieving a balance between the ‘narrative’ and analytical aspects of the
work.

That required meaningful analysis of my work and my behaviours to provide

the legitimacy that will be expected within the academy as well as to enable
me to develop habits of research that can be built upon. So, while I explored
the experience, I measured it against the data (my public works) and derived
outcomes that can be more widely shared and tested, if required. Decision-
making was based around data derived from very formal processes, such as
student module evaluation forms, pass rates and progression rates. This
provided hard data that identifies what performs well, and that university
managers liked the quantitative data that illustrates success in this way.

For my part, I am more interested in the qualitative data – and it was this
whch also drove the development of aspects of the degree programmes.
Feedback comments from students and other stakeholders are of greater use
to me. This dual source of feedback informs my decisions around programme
and curriculum content and pedagogical approaches and is the basis for
action around programme development and change and offers opportunities
for active and proactive decision-making.
In seeking to produce academically legitimate work, I was concerned about
the credibility and validity of a remembered experience because this forms a
large part of autoethnographic work. I had to trust my own recollections and
mounds of old paperwork that constituted informal/formal records of how work
was progressed. As Ellis & Bochner state ‘there is no such thing as an
orthodox reliability in autoethnographic research. However, we can do
reliability checks’ (2000, p.751). Therefore, throughout this process I have
analysed documentation, discussed, remembered and reminisced about my
experiences with colleagues, students, family and friends to help build
trustworthiness in the development of my public works and the impacts these
have achieved.

The purpose of undertaking the DProf was to find different – and better –
ways of having a positive impact on the design and delivery of the journalism
degree within my own university. Wright (2008) asserts observing ourselves
and ‘telling’ the story of that experience does provide a way in which to do
make progress in how one does things.

Manning and Adam (2015) provided further support that auto-ethnography

was a valid way of undertaking research because, as they state, experience
cannot be separated from a range of cultural, social and environmental
contexts and in the telling of how this experience has brought meaning
‘becomes an acceptable, feasible and indispensible kind of data’ that can be
researched.

Autoethnography to prompt action

As Ellis & Bochner assert auto-ethnographers are required to look both inward
and outward to gain the greatest understanding. They talk about a ‘dual
identity’ (2000, p.74) where the academic and personal selves are working in
tandem to reflect on some experience. They say ‘the goal is to write
meaningfully and evocatively about topics that matter and may make a
difference’ (ibid, p.748).
Rossing & Scott (2016) talk about the role of playing an insider who also
needs to stand back and reflect from a professional perspective. This is not
without its challenges because it meant critiquing my own work and decisions,
but as Ellis & Bochner (2000) state, autoethnography is about allowing
oneself to be vulnerable, they state it is ‘the self questioning autoethnography
demands is extremely difficult’ (ibid, p.738).

What I am clear on is that the ‘self questioning’ has a purpose. Jones et al

(2015) talk about the reciprocal nature of autoethnography and that work of
this nature often includes calls to action – indeed my own experience has
called me to action to the extent that, in designing an updated degree during
the time in which I was undertaking the doctoral programme. As such, I have
challenged myself and colleagues to consider the role of journalism education
within a university environment and have sought wider discussion about this.

Ellis, (cited in Jones et al 2015) says 'Autoethnography requires that we

observe ourselves observing, that we interrogate what we think and believe,
and that we challenge our own assumptions’ (Ibid, p.10). It necessitates that
we ‘re-think and revise’ our behaviours and learn from them to achieve a more
meaningful outcome or future. Bochner (2015, cited in Jones et al) says ‘the
burden of the autoethnographer is to make meaning of all the stuff of memory
and experience – how it felt then and how it feels now…The past is always
open to revision and so too, are our stories of the past and what they mean
now (here he is citing Ellis 2009)’ (ibid, p.54).

The purpose in undertaking an autoethnographical approach was to enable

me to make meaning of my experience and to have confidence that the
research was pitched at the appropriate level. Articulating my experience and
acknowledging the value of experiential learning at doctoral level was a
revelation but it also illustrates it is an approach which has a place in the field
of journalism education.

Conclusions
Initially, the autoethnographic approach challenged me, as Stanley who puts it
very succinctly when she writes ‘the complexity and conventions of academic
writing work, in part, as gatekeeper. If you don’t write like us, you can’t come
in’ (2015, p.146). What I have learned from reviewing the wide body of
literature on the matter is that there are many ways of presenting my research
and that it can still make it a meaningful, useful and legitimate contribution to
the discourse around journalism education.

Proponents of autoethnography acknowledge the body of work incorporates

‘quirky, unconventional text’ (Stanley, ibid, p.148) that are far removed from
the almost stoic nature of academic writing. If I am to view the compilation of
the research project as a journey from which I emerged transformed, for me it
meant becoming more ‘academic’, and attaining the perceived professional
status that will enable me to further develop my own career. What I now
realise is that autoethnography, for all it can be disarmingly personal in its
content, it does necessitate criticality at its core.

What I have achieved in the process of using auto-ethnography has been ‘me’
using both an academic and a personal voice to analyse, write and reflect on
what I have learned from the my own practice over a long period of time
(Rossing & Scott, 2016).

A benefit of using autoethnography is that it allows personal experience to be

shared so as to contribute to the development, either professional or personal,
to both the producer of the autoethnography and to others who may benefit
from reading it. From my perspective, undertaking autoethnography enable
me to examine my own professional strengths and weaknesses at a point in
time when I needed to create another new degree programme over a short
period of time and I needed to reflect on what I had done well previously. For
others it is about presenting a piece of work that documents and analyses a
process or an experience in a way that is more useful and meaningful than
mere anecdote would be.
My autoethnography provides insights into the ‘big’ aspects of developing
undergraduate degrees in journalism education in my own university as well
as the minutiae of what needed to be considered. I would not go as far as to
say it is a blueprint, because it is very specific to my own institution, culture
and environment, but if I had been able to have read such a document 15
years ago, my journey through the academy would have been much different.
In this sense, autoethnography has enabled me to produce relevant and
related research for other journalism educators.

Throughout the duration of completing the DProf I moved from having a

sceptical view of autoethnography to one where I now believe it can have a
very useful place in the field of journalism education. It requires a number of
criteria to be considered ‘autoethnography’ and that list is large, at the basic
level it does need to be personal, it does need to be reflexive, it requires an
acceptance that experience brings meaning and knowledge to our lives that is
not in isolation but is related to our individual environments and experiences
and that with careful analysis of how these experiences impact on our lives
and practice we can bring meaning to others, in the case of my research,
largely from a professional perspective.

The reflexive nature of the analysis does need to be grounded in the

underpinning theoretical perspectives that frame the development of
journalism education and there does need to be strong evidence that the
experience being analysed is supported by artefacts or interviews or
observations of practice and behaviour.

Autoethnography could be used for more widely in the field of journalism

education to explore a variety of topics, for example, in looking at audience
reception of news, journalism students and educators could study themselves
as the consumers and/or producers of news to help understand responses or
consumption patterns or behaviours. Autoethnography could be used to
measure exactly how influential the news media is in election campaigns by
exploring its impact on how journalism educators are voting and why. It could
be used to assess the impact of the endless stream of health and lifestyle
advice that proliferates in the news media. It provides an opportunity for
journalism educators to use their own experiences to reflect more broadly on
the role of the news media is society by analysing our own reactions and
responses to it. The choice of topics that could be explored from an
autoethnographical perspective that could help us more fully understand the
news media is, I believe, infinite.

Autoethnography has at its core a sense of transition being made and in my

experience of using it, I did indeed move from a place of deep discomfort to
one where I would argue that given the right conditions, the right ‘story’ and
using the required rigour, it offers much to the journalism educator who
wishes to research and interrogate the field, and their experience of it, in a
different way.

Undertaking this reflection on these public works has led me to a place and
perspective that challenges some of the accepted norms and practices in
journalism education. However, it has also led me to acknowledge that my
voice and experience should be heard, as should a myriad of views and
experiences, and that while my views may run counter to the prevailing
voices, both in my own university and more widely in the academy on
journalism education, it is nevertheless grounded in my lived experience, and
research, and therefore needs to become part of the shared discourse around
the development of the subject area.

Adopting the autoethnographic approach, as I have acknowledged here, was

challenging not least because I felt my work may be more critically judged by
peers and because I had not adopted a more traditional research method.
What autoethnography has been for me has been formative and
transformative because it has enabled me to look at my public works in quite
a forensic way. It has forced me to consider what drove the decisions I took
and how I negotiated various challenges around meeting stakeholder
expectations, designing a relevant curriculum and, most importantly, how I will
respond to similar challenges in the future.
By its very nature autoethnography is disorienting, especially for a former
journalist, but I have learned through the process that my views are also
disorienting because they do not present the prevailing views on journalism
education within my own team and more broadly in the academy.

Autoethnography forced me to recognise in the context of compiling these

public works, and subsequent reflective critique of them, that I drew deeply on
the well of my own experience and I came to understand that this is
acceptable and credible research at doctoral level. As such, as we advance
the discipline of journalism education in the academy we need to draw on a
range of voices and understand that merit lies in hearing a multiplicity of
views, approaches and experiences.

I see no value in seeking absolute answers to the challenges inherent in

developing journalism education programmes to meet the needs of a
changing world, what I understand is our need to be more reflexive and fluid
in our responses. Similarly, the ways in which we research the field needs to
be able to adopt an ecology that lets it come to maturity by acknowledging
different approaches.

Ultimately, I gauge the success of the autoethnographic approach in how it

has changed me, my perspective, how this will impact on future provision at
my university and on the confidence it has given me to believe in this
contribution to the body of work around journalism education and that it can
be adopted by journalism educators with confidence that it enables the field to
be studied in many ways.

References
Anderson, L. and Glass-Coffin, B. (2015), ‘I learn by going:autoethnographic
modes of inquiry’ in Jones, S. H., Adams, T. and Ellis, C. (eds)
Handbook of Autoethnography. Abingdon:Routledge (pp 57-84).

Bochner. A. P. and Ellis, C. (Eds.) (2002) Ethnographically Speaking:

Autoethnography, Literature and Aesthetics. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press
Bochner, A. P. (2015), ‘Putting meanings into motion: autoethnograpy’s
existential calling’, in Jones, S. H., Adams, T. and Ellis, C. (eds) Handbook of
Autoethnography. Abingdon: Routledge, (pp 50-57).

Connell, C. (2008), Journalism in the Service of Democracy: A Summit of

Deans, Faculty, Students and Journalists. Carnegie Corporation of New York:
New York

Cresswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Approaches. (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Delamont, S. (2007), ‘Arguments against autoethnography’, Qualitative

Researcher, 4, pp2-5. Retrieved March 1, 2016.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/QualitativeResearcher/QR_Issue4_Feb0
7.pdf

Denscombe, M. (2010), The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social

Research Projects: for small-scale social research projects, Maidenhead:
Open University Press

Ellis, C. (2009), ‘Fighting Back or Moving On: An Autoethnographic Response

to Critics’, The International Review of Qualitative Research, 2(3), pp371-378.
Retrived March 1, 2016. https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-
attachments/444197/2ae8bddfa31cf4f4dc42103333499b1c.pdf

Ellis, C. (2015), ‘Carrying the torch for autoethnography’ in Jones, S. H.,

Adams, T. and Ellis, C. (eds). Handbook of Autoethnography, Abingdon
Routledge, (pp 9-13).

Ellis, C., and Bochner, A. (2000), ‘Autoethnography, personal narrative,

reflexivity: Researcher as subject’, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds),
Handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, (pp 733-768).
Ellis, C. and Bocher, A. P. (2000). ‘Autoethnography, personal narrative’, in N.
Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 733-768.

Ellis, C., Adams T. E., and Bochner, A. P. (2011), ‘Autoethnography: An

Overview’ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12 (1), Art. 10. Retrieved
March 2, 2016. http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589

Forber-Pratt, A.J. (2015), ‘“You’re going to do what?” Challenges of

Autoethnography in the Academy’, Qualitative Inquiry, 21(9), pp821-835.
http://qix.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/03/14/1077800415574908
(last accessed February 23, 2016)

Freire, P. (2014), Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed,

London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hernandez, F., Sancho, J. M., Crues, A., & Montane, A. (2010), ‘Becoming
university scholars: inside professional autoethnographers’, Journal of
Research Practice, 6 (1), Article M7

Johns, C. (2013), Becoming a reflective practitioner, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Jones, S. H., Adams, T. and Ellis, C. (2015), ‘Coming to know

autoethnography as more than a method’, in Jones, S. H., Adams, T. and
Ellis, C. (eds), Handbook of Autoethnography Routledge: Abingdon

Manning, J. and Adams, T. E. (2015), ‘Popular culture studies and

autoethnography: An essay on method.’ The Popular Culture Studies Journal,
3, pp187-222.

Murdock, G. (2002), ‘Media, culture & modern times: social science

investigations’, in Jensen, K. B. (ed) A Handbook of Media and
Communication Research, Oxford: Routledge, pp 40-62.
Ngunjiri, F. W. (2010), ‘Living Autoethnograpy: Connecting Life and
Research’, Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), Article E1. Retrieved (March 3,
2016) from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/241/186

Pathak, A. A. (2010), ‘Opening my voice, claiming my space: Theorizing the

possibilities of postcolonial approaches to autoethnography’, Journal of
Research Practice, 6(1), Article M10. Retrieved [March 3, 2016], from
http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/231/191

Pearce, C. (2010), ‘The Crises and Freedoms of Researching Your Own

Life.’, Journal of Research Practice. 6 (1), Article M2. Retrieved March 1,
2016. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/219/184

Rossing, H. and Scott, S. (2016), ‘Taking the fun out of it: the spoiling effects
of researching something you love’, Qualitative Research, pp1-15. Retrieved
March 1, 2016.
http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/02/03/1468794115622561.abstract

Le Roux, C. S. (2017), Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research,

International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 20 (2), pp195-207.

Schon, D. (1996), The Reflective Practitioner, Aldershot: Arena Ashgate

Smith, E. (2011). ‘Teaching critical reflection’, Teaching in Higher Education,

16 (2), pp211-223.

Stanley, P. (2015) ‘Writing the PhD Journey (s): An Autoethnography of Zine-

Writing, Angst, Embodiment and Backpacker Travels’, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 44(2) pp143-168. Retrieved March 1, 2016.
http://jce.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/08/0891241614528708
Wright, J. (2008) ‘Searching one’s self: the autoethnography of a nurse
teacher’, Journal of Research in Nursing, 13 (4) pp 338-347. Retrieved March
1, 2016. http://jrn.sagepub.com/content/13/4/338.abstract